Monday, August 27, 2012

Commitment and Dedication

Americans have become very weak mentally and physically over the past few decades, and that is displayed by their lack of commitment. The increasing number of addictions and obesity only illustrates that Americans are too lazy and mentally weak to make a commitment to overcome their faults and addictions. Government entitlement programs promote laziness because they do not force individuals to set goals. Most people fail to make goals. When they do, they fail to follow through with their commitment. It is much easier to quit instead of facing a tough challenge to become a better person. A good example is going to the gym after the New Year. Initially, the gym is packed. Within two weeks, things are back to normal as people quit and break their resolutions. A rule of thumb suggests it takes at least twenty-one days to break a habit, and a minimum of six months to train the brain to maintain the habit. Alcohol, smoking, and drug addictions can take significantly longer to kick the habit.

I have experienced other people’s inability to follow through with project tasks during my corporate working days. People fail to follow through on simple commitments such as returning an email or phone call. It is almost as if we have become so lackadaisical in our behavior that it is becoming acceptable to quit and fail. This type of behavior is not setting a good example for children. Everyone should create goals that will make him or her a better person and follow through until the goals are obtained. Whether the goal is to become a better parent, a better listener, or to lose weight, it is necessary to fight weakness and prevail with will power. It is unacceptable to make promises or set goals that are not attainable. It is much easier to commit to smaller goals, and once they are obtained, set new goals. For example, if a person has a goal to lose thirty pounds, then the goal should be to lose five pounds and then build on that once that goal is obtained. Once the goal of thirty pounds is obtained to regress and go backwards is unacceptable. A goal is not obtained if it is not maintained.

The other problematic issue with misguided commitment is lack of decisiveness and the ability to refrain from sitting on the fence. Many leaders today cannot make decisive decisions. They act slowly and are unsure of themselves. They are afraid to make the wrong decision and do not want to offend or have someone not like them. Political and corporate leaders routinely are “two-faced” and sit on the fence when making decisions. They may say one thing and do something completely different. This is commitment at its worst. Does this sound familiar; it should, since it explains the personality of our Commander in Chief. People need to be able to make decisions and stick with them because it is impossible to please everyone. Mitt Romney, for example, was more of a moderate Republican with his political views when he was elected governor of Massachusetts. It is not easy to be a Republican and win the governorship of such a liberal state. Once Mitt ran for President, he has conveniently changed his stance on many issues in an attempt to win the Republican nomination. He had to do this if he wanted to win over conservative voters. It is okay for people to change their mind; however, in Mitt’s case, he changed his mind at a convenient time. Therefore, voters may question his commitment, integrity, or trust because it appears he is only saying what is best for him at the time. Obama is an even better example. He ran as a moderate, even though he governs as a socialist. Obama’s commitment and dedication will be challenged during his presidency since he wants everyone to like him. Thus, it will be hard for him to make tough choices if the public does not agree with his decisions. That is why it is important for conservatives and Republicans to continually challenge any Obama decisions. Obama has waffled and flip flopped on so many issues because he wants to be liked. If he is continually challenged and forced to change his mind, the Republicans can prove once and for all he does not have the conviction and fortitude to run our great nation.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Barnes and Noble,


  1. I had to mull this one over for a bit. I agree with you. It does seem that many in this country have lost any sense of self-discipline, at least in one area or another. Not to sound like a broken record but I think it’s partly attributable to the spread and adoption of liberalism (there she goes again!) and the notion that we shouldn’t judge others or that all behaviors must be treated as though they are equally acceptable. Liberals make heroes out of people like Charlie Sheen even though he acts like a pig, because then they are free to act like pigs if they want to.

    I think the decline in self-discipline can be correlated to the liberal agenda of distancing people from the consequences of their own behaviors. Nowadays if you’re an addict no one judges you and if you play your cards right the gov’t will take care of you. They might even give you free needles. Now, if you’re haphazard about sex, you can get free pregnancy care and child support, or tax-payer funded care for your STDs, or a subsidized abortion at Planned Parenthood. The key to changing any of this, IMO, is to get the gov’t out of the business of rescuing people from their own bad choices.

    What worries me, though, is when people use these behaviors as an excuse to regulate everyone, as in the case of New York’s mayor trying to outlaw large soft drinks or cities dictating what goes into a Happy Meal. They justify their tyranny by saying that we all pay for things like obesity, therefore we are entitled to regulate what people eat. In the 1st place, their regulations spill over onto people who aren’t obese or unhealthy. In the 2nd place, the simple solution is to stop making all of us pay for obesity. If obesity truly is a significant factor in the cost of HC, then charge people more if they are obese.

    I have to say that I have serious questions about things like obesity and smoking and their true cost to HC. My husband’s Uncle ‘Tub’ was quite overweight his whole life but he lived to be 92 and rarely saw a doctor. On the other hand my husband’s dad, who wasn’t very overweight (and never smoke or drank), became a diabetic in his 70’s, had a large number of medical problems and died at 82. I didn’t know my own mother but she was a smoker who was healthy (physically, not mentally) until she suddenly got lung cancer in her 50’s and died very quickly, the point being that her medical expenses didn’t even come close to those accumulated by my non-smoking father-in-law. There are those who argue that the early deaths of those who smoke and are obese actually saves money for insurance companies in the long run. I don’t know, but I would really like to see a comprehensive study done on this subject and I think we might be surprised at the answers.

    Sorry to blather on so long!

  2. CW, I could not agree more - liberalism is the main issue with our lack of dedication and commitment.

    I understand your point about obesity and smoking. My younger brother smokes and is overweight and I am fit, but I have more issues - high cholesterol, barretts esophugous, neurological disorder, etc. He has had hip issues, but that is it.

    Thank you for the well thought out response.

  3. I think heredity and genetics are as much a factor in people’s health as behavior, if not more so. Unfortunately we can’t always do much about that.